Resetting the balance in competitive Epic Armageddon
If you’ve been following my articles for a while you will no
doubt have identified an undercurrent of concern with aspects of army balance.
Whilst I strive to present tactical and list design options to support
developing players to improve in the game we all love I do ultimately end up in
the same spot every time, there is only so much you can realistically do when
some armies are clearly so much more powerful than others. I’ve also discovered
a clear disconnect between the metas around the world with a very different interpretation
of these power levels between countries.
So the challenge then is multifold, a need to fix balance in
a way that will support a positive mindset towards our game in a competitive
setting and one that can be easily applied to different contexts. Changing
lists isn’t particularly effective as there seems to be a mindset of
preservation of the original lists as if they were handed down like a sacred
text. New lists and modifications are also prone to imbalance and aren’t really
helping the issue in my mind. The solution then needs to be simple, flexible and
local. I think back to good ol 7th edition Warhammer Fantasy which in
my mind will always be the peak of tournament gaming for a variety of reasons
similar to Epic. That said though we struggled with the same central issues. In
those days armies like Dark Eldar and Vampire Counts were the pinnacle of the
power pyramid while Orks and Beastmen were struggling to get a run.
In those days we had the same central issue, couldn’t live
with the imbalance, couldn’t change the lists. Lots of different systems were
tried from player based composition and panel judged systems that would impose
penalties on the final scores of tough lists. Arbitrary restrictions on what
could be included were also tried but nothing really did the job until someone
came up with this gem. Instead of tournament points adjustments weaker armies
were allowed to have a higher cap on the points used for army selection, giving
them a boost on the table rather than in the final scores. The same system
could theoretically be applied to Epic. It would look something like this.
Top Tier Lists
Biel Tan, Iyanden, DKOK etc
|
Total Army Points
3000 pts
|
Mid-Tier lists
Baran Siege Masters, Voirla Tau, Emperor’s Children, Space Wolves
|
Total Army Points
3150 pts
|
Lower Tier Lists
Steel Legion, Ghazghull Warhorde, Standard Tau, Codex Astartes
|
Total Army Points
3300 pts
|
This is just a really basic idea, discussion starter at
best. The beauty of this system is that it’s super easy to tailor to each
individual meta. In Europe where Codex Marines and Black Legion are said to be
doing well their table might look very differently to down here in Australia. It could easily be tweaked between comps if a new meta emerged too. Either way the intent would be the same to encourage variety in the armies attending
our tournaments, and doing well at them in order to foster a great feeling and
grow our hobby.
Just food for thought.
Hey Steve great idea and very worth some discussion!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDave Susco suggests a, in my mind better approach, of a handicap system here on TacComms:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?p=607906#p607906
K. aka Chroma
gday steve,
ReplyDeleteI continue to applaud your contemplation and research regarding the balance in the game (your recent articles on eldar and tau were also insightful).
"Changing lists isn’t particularly effective as there seems to be a mindset of preservation of the original lists as if they were handed down like a sacred text."
As a new player (though not new to the setting) this seems illogical. In order for it to qualify as a strategy game rather than a gambling event, the __game__ should be the key focus (and this may be challenging for some) from an abstracted perspective in terms of the mechanics alone (i.e. take away perceptions of faction fluff and unit names).
Additionally as list modification or new lists are added, older (all) lists should be reviewed as part of the process in order for existing list to not become obsolete. Keeping a list static because of 'fluff reasons' is about the worst reason imaginable.
A revision doesn't even need to alter the list structure but can alter points, if a unit absolutely MUST have this many ‘gribbles’ or ‘stompers’ then reduce their cost if they are now underpowered.
"New lists and modifications are also prone to imbalance and aren’t really helping the issue in my mind."
The review/change process should be abstract and holistic (with all lists considered) rather than a cascading series of changes as new imbalances are recognised and reacted to. This is undoubtedly difficult given there is no easy empirical list matching stats to cost that can be referenced. I recognise why testing/balance is used but it’s contradictory to say there is balance. At 3k there’s enough padding to better hide the imperfections, and if the game is only ‘more or less balance’ then making official changes should be easier in order to adjust that house of cards (perhaps like wikis which allow anyone to change them, and user majority decides the contemporary content).
"Instead of tournament points adjustments weaker armies were allowed to have a higher cap on the points used for army selection, giving them a boost on the table rather than in the final scores."
It's an interesting idea and worth further thought. On what basis are the handicaps worked out? If it can be determined that army A is worth less than army B, can't the units in that army B be recosted or adjusted? This would mean that casual games wouldn't need adjusting from a required master list.
"Either way the intent would be the same to encourage variety in the armies attending our tournaments, and doing well at them in order to foster a great feeling and grow our hobby."
Firstly; it's nice to see someone looking to champion balance for the community (and with a viable suggestion no less).
Secondly; the issue of faction attrition is actually of great importance to the game. If a faction has effectively no chance of winning (especially against certain factions) then only the uninformed or fanatically inclined are going to run those factions.
The actual mechanics of the game are great. The setting is great; with several markedly different factions it has the potential for some exceptionally narrative competitions. How that would fail if everyone played eldar and guard (or armies that specifically counter them) and the other armies go extinct. That is not a recommendation for the game.
How can we go about changing/balancing the system in netau? Who decides on such things?
Sorry for any rambling opinions/digressions but this something i’ve also been contemplating recently.
regards,
chris